Royal Society: fracking is safe, as along as it’s regulated

"Extremely unlikely" groundwater could be contaminated by the process.

A UK review by the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering has concluded that fracking can be undertaken safely, as long as "best practices are implemented and robustly enforced through regulation."

Fracking (short for hydraulic fracturing) is a process where highly-pressurized liquid is fired into the ground, splintering rocks many hundreds of metres below the surface. Oil and gas escapes, which is then collected up for fuel.

"There has been much speculation around the safety of shale gas extraction following examples of poor practice in the US," said Robert Mair, chair of the review's working group. "We found that the most common areas of concern, such as the causation of earthquakes with any significant impact or fractures reaching and contaminating drinking water, were very low risk."

Those findings are in line with previous reports. The US National Research Council found that earthquakes caused by fracking are rarely strong enough for people to feel. The British Geological survey said it was "extremely unlikely" that groundwater could be contaminated by the process.

The review also points out that open ponds for storing wastewater, which have been used in American fracking operations, carry a possible risk of leakage, but are not permitted in the UK.

One cause for concern is the integrity of wells, as poor cementation and casing failures can lead to leaks and environmental contamination. "Therefore, the review concludes that the priority must be to ensure the integrity of every well throughout its lifetime." Strict well inspections and integrity tests are standard practice are recommended.

The review also recommends providing additional resources as needed to UK regulators, enforcing Environmental Risk Assessments for all shale gas operations, and the robust monitoring of methane in groundwater, seismicity and methane leakages.

Mair adds, "this review is not an exhaustive analysis of all the issues associated with shale gas and we have highlighted a number of issues that we believe merit further consideration, including the climate risks associated with the extraction and subsequent use of shale gas, and the public acceptability of hydraulic fracturing."

This is such bullshit. A friend of mine recently finished doing a study on fracking and found a lot of evidence that fracking is exactly as dangerous to groundwater as many people fear. Unfortunately, he is too junior, and his results not-quote-overwhelming enough, for his government agency to back them, as they know it would immediately cause a gigantic lawsuit with the oil companies the moment it was published.

So now he just has to sit on it, and hope that someone more senior than him does the same research, comes to the same findings, and then uses his research as supporting documentation. (not naming names or agencies, as I don't want to get him in trouble)

Gah - Battlestar Galactica has ruined me for life - I can't, for the life of me, read "fracking" and think of the hydraulic fracturing process - my first thought is the BSG meaning of it, and my initial thought while reading the headline was why Ars would post an article with a headline that says fracking is safe as long as it's regulated...

Gah - Battlestar Galactica has ruined me for life - I can't, for the life of me, read "fracking" and think of the hydraulic fracturing process - my first thought is the BSG meaning of it, and my initial thought while reading the headline was why Ars would post an article with a headline that says fracking is safe as long as it's regulated...

Gah - Battlestar Galactica has ruined me for life - I can't, for the life of me, read "fracking" and think of the hydraulic fracturing process - my first thought is the BSG meaning of it, and my initial thought while reading the headline was why Ars would post an article with a headline that says fracking is safe as long as it's regulated...

+1 I can't help but snicker every time I see the word

Quote:

Mair adds, "this review is not an exhaustive analysis of all the issues associated with shale gas and we have highlighted a number of issues that we believe merit further consideration

Something tells me this review was not an "exhaustive analysis," period. Sure, you can regulate the hell out of the process and it might be successful if you are many miles from civilization. But in/near a neighboring town? I am highly skeptical the process could be regulated *enough*.

As a preface, I work in the industry - but not for an actual producer.

Fracking is safe, as long as all necessary steps are taken - which the report shows.

What you see in GasLand and hear on the news are companies taking shortcuts or not taking the necessary precautions to protect groundwater. So, is it safe? That depends on the company doing the actual fracking...

Think of it like any industry where there's something new - people are going to screw it up until all the regulations and procautions are put in place. The trouble is, there's very little regulations on fracking at the moment... That's not to say companies shouldn't do all that's necessary (as the report states) to stop any problems that may arise.

Think of it like the dawn of the automobile... People were killing each other like crazy until safety regulations, laws, and other provisions were put into place to stop the harm of the consumer.

As a preface, I work in the industry - but not for an actual producer.

Fracking is safe, as long as all necessary steps are taken - which the report shows.

What you see in GasLand and hear on the news are companies taking shortcuts or not taking the necessary precautions to protect groundwater. So, is it safe? That depends on the company doing the actual fracking...

Think of it like any industry where there's something new - people are going to screw it up until all the regulations and procautions are put in place. The trouble is, there's very little regulations on fracking at the moment... That's not to say companies shouldn't do all that's necessary (as the report states) to stop any problems that may arise.

Think of it like the dawn of the automobile... People were killing each other like crazy until safety regulations, laws, and other provisions were put into place to stop the harm of the consumer.

There's a difference between "is safe" and "can be safe when done properly." But that said, it seems dangerous to assume that *every time* it has gone wrong, it was because a precaution was overlooked. Maybe, sure, but how do you test that assumption?

Certainly we would agree at this point, though, that there should be better regulation, better monitoring, and clear liability established that can't be wiped away by contracts that people sign when their heads are spinning from dreams of all that money.

As a preface, I work in the industry - but not for an actual producer.

Fracking is safe, as long as all necessary steps are taken - which the report shows.

What you see in GasLand and hear on the news are companies taking shortcuts or not taking the necessary precautions to protect groundwater. So, is it safe? That depends on the company doing the actual fracking...

Think of it like any industry where there's something new - people are going to screw it up until all the regulations and procautions are put in place. The trouble is, there's very little regulations on fracking at the moment... That's not to say companies shouldn't do all that's necessary (as the report states) to stop any problems that may arise.

Think of it like the dawn of the automobile... People were killing each other like crazy until safety regulations, laws, and other provisions were put into place to stop the harm of the consumer.

There's a difference between "is safe" and "can be safe when done properly." But that said, it seems dangerous to assume that *every time* it has gone wrong, it was because a precaution was overlooked. Maybe, sure, but how do you test that assumption?

By investigating each unsafe issue? Collating the data? You know, things they do when preparing reports like these?

As a preface, I work in the industry - but not for an actual producer.

Fracking is safe, as long as all necessary steps are taken - which the report shows.

What you see in GasLand and hear on the news are companies taking shortcuts or not taking the necessary precautions to protect groundwater. So, is it safe? That depends on the company doing the actual fracking...

Think of it like any industry where there's something new - people are going to screw it up until all the regulations and procautions are put in place. The trouble is, there's very little regulations on fracking at the moment... That's not to say companies shouldn't do all that's necessary (as the report states) to stop any problems that may arise.

Think of it like the dawn of the automobile... People were killing each other like crazy until safety regulations, laws, and other provisions were put into place to stop the harm of the consumer.

I think this really is really the point. The way I understand it,meaning i can be wrong, fracking can show positive production results for many locations, which is in conflict that many of those locations are far beyond inappropriate as a suitable location for the practice.

I think this really is really the point. The way I understand it,meaning i can be wrong, fracking can show positive production results for many locations, which is in conflict that many of those locations are far beyond inappropriate as a suitable location for the practice.

You're absolutely right. The actual engineering practice of fracking is as safe as driving in a box with wheels far faster than evolution designed mankind to travel (a little XKCD reference for those that follow). Basically, it's as safe as we design it to be. And on paper, designs, and full practices, it's extremely safe. But when producers take shortcuts, or try to drill farther than the design spec says (this happens), problems arise.

Basically, I think people need to understand the report for what it is. Is the engineering act of fracking 'safe'? Yes. Is it executed safely? Not always.

Fracking is safe, as long as all necessary steps are taken - which the report shows.

What you see in GasLand and hear on the news are companies taking shortcuts or not taking the necessary precautions to protect groundwater. So, is it safe? That depends on the company doing the actual fracking...

Think of it like any industry where there's something new - people are going to screw it up until all the regulations and procautions are put in place. The trouble is, there's very little regulations on fracking at the moment... That's not to say companies shouldn't do all that's necessary (as the report states) to stop any problems that may arise.

Think of it like the dawn of the automobile... People were killing each other like crazy until safety regulations, laws, and other provisions were put into place to stop the harm of the consumer.

That's fine and good in principle: of course if you regulate away all the bad stuff, the outcome will be good.

The problem, though, is that the governments involved stand to benefit from extraction, through selling extraction rights. That makes this totally different from vehicle safety regulations: those regulations didn't cost the local government anything, while improving the lives of individuals. Moreover car manufacturers didn't object too much to the rules because safer cars can be sold at a higher price.

All of that is different for the dirty frackers [apologies, BSG fans]: clean gas costs more, but yields the same price at market. Thus stronger regulations result in less fracking, and thus less revenue for local governments. So the frackers do exactly what you'd expect them to do: they wine and dine local officials, conveying to them the facts of the matter: stronger regulations means less revenue. Unlike seatbelts, fracking regulations cost money, something local governments are loath to do, especially when the other side of the code is the difficult-to-quantify social costs.

The fight is beginning here in Nova Scotia, where a drilling company wants to explore really close to a home on well water and within 50m of a watercourse. The drilling company is claiming it's a ditch while residents are saying it's a brook. Needless to say regardless of what name it's called, the watercourse drains into the largest freshwater lake in the area.

The problem is that the regulations are simply not in place to deal with this type of drilling and the government here is not willing to put a moratorium in place until they get their act together.

This is the same bunch of governmental idiots that decided it's ok to confiscate some property from a Christmas tree grower who has been in operation for many years to a global mining company that wants to stripmine the area for gold.

Thus stronger regulations result in less fracking, and thus less revenue for local governments. So the frackers do exactly what you'd expect them to do: they wine and dine local officials, conveying to them the facts of the matter: stronger regulations means less revenue. Unlike seatbelts, fracking regulations cost money, something local governments are loath to do, especially when the other side of the code is the difficult-to-quantify social costs.

Let's be straight here, it would be the oil and gas producers who work for BP, Shell, Talisman, Apache, etc who wine and dine people. Companies like Baker Hughes, Trican, Slumberger, Halliburton are service companies that do the work they don't do that.

Tell my friends in Oklahoma with DAILY earthquakes due to the fracking performed there, that fracking is safe...

Fracturing does not cause earthquakes, if it did then Alberta would have been ripped apart a long time ago from them.

The only way it will contaminate ground water is if the cementing job was done improperly. As it's the part that isolates the well from the ground water.

Well, in Oklahoma there are several factors that assist the 'tremors' to earthquakes occuring. Known fault lines is a big one. But you don't go from 28 earthquaks from 1977 through 2008 to

Quote:

'Our analysis showed that shortly after hydraulic fracturing began small earthquakes started occurring, and more than 50 were identified, of which 43 were large enough to be located. Most of these earthquakes occurred within a 24 hour period after hydraulic fracturing operations had ceased.'

*Of course they also say that's not enough information to determine causation, but yes it is definitely related.

Oh, it is positively identified that you CAN cause earthquakes with fracking, although practice is to prevent this.

USGS geophysicist William Ellsworth - "How big an earthquake might we trigger? That is an open question at this point. We do know we can trigger magnitude 5 earthquakes"

Sometimes the US works just fine. In a handful of years it has transformed the energy sector, greatly reduced its dependency on foreign energy and has greatly benefited its economy and the environment.

Why the latter? Gas is far better and environmentally friendly than Coal and unless you live in the dream land you need to realize that we need to have a temporary solution for the next couple of years until renewables are there. The shale gas they made available in a couple of years provides more energy than all the solar and wind power you can imagine for a long long time together. And they can provide it 24/7

As much damage as Bush and Cheney have done with Iraq they should be thanked for shale.

And yes there may be environmental problems, but so far they seem to be pretty subdued as long as you apply some control. After all the stone formations we are talking about have been holding oil and gas under high pressure for a long long long time. Pretty good track record so far.

I don't even know why they run these studies. They should just ask the clowns on here. They know instantly without even reading the paper what the correct result should be. Think of all the money they could save.

Fracturing does not cause earthquakes, if it did then Alberta would have been ripped apart a long time ago from them.

Easy with the definitive statements.

The US Geological Service has indicated strong evidence that fracturing in Oklahoma may be the cause of the increase in earthquakes. However it's also a localized condition resulting from the geological makeup of the region and the fracturing process. Comparing the geology of Alberta to that of Oklahoma is akin to comparing oranges to an orange-colored minivan.

Edit: as an aside, do you know what else can cause minor, localized earthquakes? Landfills. Methane pockets build up under the layers of dirt and stone as the landfill is used up. When these pockets suddenly vent or shift the earth moves, causing a ripple effect that can be felt from miles around.

I don't even know why they run these studies. They should just ask the clowns on here. They know instantly without even reading the paper what the correct result should be. Think of all the money they could save.

Yeah, but think of Joy that the Arsane Clown Posse would miss out on by not having the opportunity to irritate all the cranky old farts who really DO have all the answers. And don't forget Gramps; Juggalo Championship Wrestling: Gas Patch Division this Friday!

Tell my friends in Oklahoma with DAILY earthquakes due to the fracking performed there, that fracking is safe...

If it's not safe then it's not being properly regulated and the companies aren't adhering to best practices. That's the point of this report. So the issue is not that fracking is always bad, the issues it that extraction is frequently done badly. This needs to be addressed.

Fracking did add around 75billion Dollars to the US economy in 2010 and this is set to go up over 110b in 2015.

Assuming that Fracking is mostly controlled and safe (which is plausible to assume given that the geologic formations we are talking about have stored gas under high pressure for millions of years) you can fix a large number of flaming faucets for that kind of money. Or fix a couple houses damaged by mild earth quakes (that can happen much more readily through mining for example)

Sometimes people have a problem comparing dollar amounts with environmental damage but sometimes if the benefits are so huge and the damages so small you just have to do it.

110b per year. That's a lot of hospitals, cleaned rivers, protected forests, etc. And it also is good for the world security because a US that is mostly self sufficient makes it much less easy for regimes like Iran to blackmail them.

So yes sometimes it pays to be cynical but other times you just need to have a look at the numbers.

As a preface, I work in the industry - but not for an actual producer.

Fracking is safe, as long as all necessary steps are taken - which the report shows.

What you see in GasLand and hear on the news are companies taking shortcuts or not taking the necessary precautions to protect groundwater. So, is it safe? That depends on the company doing the actual fracking...

Think of it like any industry where there's something new - people are going to screw it up until all the regulations and procautions are put in place. The trouble is, there's very little regulations on fracking at the moment... That's not to say companies shouldn't do all that's necessary (as the report states) to stop any problems that may arise.

Think of it like the dawn of the automobile... People were killing each other like crazy until safety regulations, laws, and other provisions were put into place to stop the harm of the consumer.

It is actually more sinister. There is no regulation in the US that requires proper cementation, or the adherence to any standards for that matter. There is also nobody checking them.

The US regulation amounts to "ask for forgivness". Ie, it is forbidden to pollute the environment. And if it can be proven (a HUGE HUGE HUGE "if") to originate from the fracking operations, then the operator needs to pay clean-up costs and penalties.

The US authorities may introduce new regulation that will actually require proof of isolation and cementation to regulatory authorities. But until that happens, it is a free for all bonanza in the US when it comes to fracking.

that's easy to say when you don't live in the affected area and aren't relying on the gas companies to do things properly instead of half-assing everything that could possibly be half-assed.

Which is a control problem. Which needs to be fixed. If you look at something that will easily add 100b to the US economy, that should be worth the while. As long as we can agree that fracking seems to be mostly safe, it should be possible to iron details out.

The nice thing about fracking is that shale gas is much better for the environment than coal or for example oil from the tar sands. Essentially you need to choose one poison and from where I stand shale gas seems to be the least harmful one.

Quote:

I'm tired of people defending fracking and fossil fuels! Our planet is in bad enough shape as it is.

And while we are at it let's do world peace and give everybody free lollipops for life. I am tired of people who make the planet worse by dogmatically ignoring reality and living in a dream world where we immediatelly stop using fossil fuels and still have a roughly similar lifestyle, instead of the Mad Max style apocalypse this would really mean.